this will have a good impact for the next bull run bringing in the next swarms of people that believe cheap random unit size is important and not looking at MC

We aren't. Where is all this FUD coming from? lol - this Pineappleexpress idiot has got you all spreading rumours

FUD?

how can this positive move requested by many in this community be fud?

I (and many, many ,any others) 100% agree with you, its a common request from the community which clearly makes sense to do

For what is worth I am against that TBH, as I was against the change in unit of account from BTC to mBTC, bits or anything else.

There is no sensible argument for not reducing the unit size.

It has been demonstrated time and time again that gbyte resisted major noob investment due to the perceived expense of byteball. I must of seen 100 threads about why people decided on other projects with far larger market caps because they were cheaper and better value based on unit size. The fact they are misguided did nothing to boost our cap and thus gain far more attention and financial support.

People just love bigger numbers and when there buying they want to get more for less.I see so many people who want to buy ripple even after it is past 50c because it's so cheap compared to bitcoin. I think re doing the unit size would be very helpful for this project and not be bad for any people who know better.

People just love bigger numbers and when there buying they want to get more for less.I see so many people who want to buy ripple even after it is past 50c because it's so cheap compared to bitcoin. I think re doing the unit size would be very helpful for this project and not be bad for any people who know better.

Maybe it would be nice to consider (if it hasn't already been considered) distributing blackbytes as well. I agree it needs more work and that they might be dumped but maybe it will give them some exposure.

this will have a good impact for the next bull run bringing in the next swarms of people that believe cheap random unit size is important and not looking at MC

We aren't. Where is all this FUD coming from? lol - this Pineappleexpress idiot has got you all spreading rumours

FUD?

how can this positive move requested by many in this community be fud?

I (and many, many ,any others) 100% agree with you, its a common request from the community which clearly makes sense to do

For what is worth I am against that TBH, as I was against the change in unit of account from BTC to mBTC, bits or anything else.

There is no sensible argument for not reducing the unit size.

It has been demonstrated time and time again that gbyte resisted major noob investment due to the perceived expense of byteball. I must of seen 100 threads about why people decided on other projects with far larger market caps because they were cheaper and better value based on unit size. The fact they are misguided did nothing to boost our cap and thus gain far more attention and financial support.

You will not please everybody when you change something like the unit size. There will always be those in favor and against. It will be up to the team to decide what course of action to take based on their analysis and feedback from the community.

I sold my GBYTES around $290 months ago (coins I received from my bounty works).I bought back around 5 days ago.In the meantime, I don't worry about the current price of the coin, its long downward trend (mostly come to the end) at any point of time after buying them back.Byteball will witness growth time soon as well as most of altcoins in the market.

this will have a good impact for the next bull run bringing in the next swarms of people that believe cheap random unit size is important and not looking at MC

We aren't. Where is all this FUD coming from? lol - this Pineappleexpress idiot has got you all spreading rumours

FUD?

how can this positive move requested by many in this community be fud?

I (and many, many ,any others) 100% agree with you, its a common request from the community which clearly makes sense to do

For what is worth I am against that TBH, as I was against the change in unit of account from BTC to mBTC, bits or anything else.

There is no sensible argument for not reducing the unit size.

It has been demonstrated time and time again that gbyte resisted major noob investment due to the perceived expense of byteball. I must of seen 100 threads about why people decided on other projects with far larger market caps because they were cheaper and better value based on unit size. The fact they are misguided did nothing to boost our cap and thus gain far more attention and financial support.

You will not please everybody when you change something like the unit size. There will always be those in favor and against. It will be up to the team to decide what course of action to take based on their analysis and feedback from the community.

There is no need to please everyone especially people that have no real argument for their view. UNLESS they are proven to be huge investors that will be leaving if things change. Even so a poll is the best way forward. ON THIS BOARD so we don't need to sign up to other crap to vote. We are all here lets vote on it here. Problem is now most byteball holders barely check the thread since it is something they probably want to forget they invested in at this point.

This isn't even all tonych's fault. At the start there was a high proportion of people here telling us all that his idea to knowingly give HUGE swathes of this minting to other ICO mangers for free was not an issue.

It is simple - a huge proportion of noobs are under the impression cheap per unit projects are cheaper and better value than high cost per unit projects regardless of cap.

This proportion went elsewhere in the last bull.

However this is not the only issue byteball has by any means. I think the distribution needs to be completed. You can't keep getting investors to invest based on x and then tell them it is now y. It kills trust. YOu need to find a way to make it more decentralised - 1 person controlling every single aspect is not what trustless decentralised projects are aiming for.

Having said all of that I can't stop myself accumulating more each week. Financial madness or a gem just biding it's time. We will see.

I see that again and again there are people here who claim that Byteball should be not be listed in Gigabytes in exchanges since this would be harming the price, because investors would perceive the high cost of one Gigabyte very expensive. I have always been against the "tactical" idea of scaling down the official unit of measurement just for the purpose to benefit the price. Tony has always stated that he is not interested in the price but in the distribution of the coin, and I have always agreed on that.

But then, I've also seen Byteball listed in Gigabytes on Coinmarketcap and something has suddenly clicked in my mind.The fact that Byteball is measured in Gigabytes is not a problem because this is harming its price.

The fact that Byteball is measured in Gigabytes is a problem because it is crucially violating Byteball's mission number one: to achieve mass adoption.

Even though Byteball's monetary base is consisting in billions of bytes, only 650.000 Gigabytes or so are existing now, and max supply will be 1 Million.Therefore, if you are thinking in terms of Gigabytes, mass adoption is virtually impossible. People will always feel the frustration of not being able to own even one single Gigabyte and they will likely not even take into consideration the currency. Since there are whales who own a lot of Gigabytes, people who will be able to afford one entire Gigabyte will be in the thousands - best case scenario. This is NOT mass adoption.People will argue that something similar is happening with Bitcoin - most of the people today can afford to own only fractions of a Bitcoin. But this, in fact, is one of the main problems of Bitcoin, people have always to carefully count how many zeroes there are before the quantity of satoshis of their transactions. This is totally absurd and in fact Bitcoin today is used only as a speculative store of value, and NOT as a real currency.Byteball aimed to be better, but if the total monetary base is consisting in just 1 Million coins the fact is that it has just AMPLIFIED 21 times this problem of Bitcoin, it has not at all solved it. There will be max 21 Million Bitcoins, and Byteball won't ever have more than one Million Gigabytes. If you are thinking in term of Gigabytes, you have just made the problem 21 times worse. And now we are thinking in terms of Gigabytes. When I'm speaking with my friend we are talking about how many Gigabytes we have, not Megabytes or Bytes. This is a mistake.

We have to think at Gigabytes as we are thinking at the Million of dollars.

The few who can afford owning the Gigabytes are the rich elite, just like those who are owning the Million of dollars. Most of the people don't own Million of dollars (or euros), they just own dollars (or euros). Perhaps thousands of Euros/Dollars ("grands"), but not Millions.And if Byteball will achieve mass adoption most of the people won't own Gigabytes, they will just own Bytes. Or Kilobytes. If you consider bytes to be cents, then you should consider the ideal unity of Byteball being Kilobytes. Not even Megabytes. Megabytes would somehow semantically sound like the "grands" - one thousand dollars or pounds according to the urban dictionary of FIAT money.Just as you don't buy a packet of cigarettes with 0.00001 Million of Dollars, you shouldn't have to buy it with 0.001 Gigabytes.This all could seem a trivial problem to many, but it is not. Reality is a state of mind and perception is playing a fundamental role in the shaping of reality.To use Gigabytes to measure Byteball generates a cognitive dissonance with the mission of achieving mass adoption. It makes feel Byteball to be an elitarian coin/platform, not a popular one. The exchanges, and more than that Coinmarketcap, are the places where the measurment unit of Byteball is officialized. If exchanges and Coinmarketcap will tell Gigabytes, people will think in Gigabytes, and this makes no sense, since in ordinary life you don't think in terms of Million of Dollars/Euros. That would be crazy. And to insist to speak about Byteball in terms of Gigabytes is crazy too. It basically makes bo sense.

As I've said, I'm not interested in the price of Byteball. In a healthy environment the price is just a natural consequence. But I am interested in seeing one little problem corrected, which alone is able to jeopardize Byteball's entire mission, since it's in complete dissonance with the "philosophy" of Byteball.

Am I missing something here or are you just spreading FUD to scoop up some cheap BYTEBALL? Just checked the link for Bittrex's coin removal[1] and haven't seen any shadow of BYTEBALL being listed there. If you are indeed telling the truth, would you mind to sharing the information to us and provide the link where you get that?[1]https://support.bittrex.com/hc/en-us/sections/200560334-Coin-Removals